buildings in Derbyshire and elsewhere upwards of
L30,000, and Mr Arkwright also erected a very large and extensive
building in Manchester at the expense of upwards of L4000. Thus a
business had been formed which already (he calculated) employed upwards
of five thousand persons, and a capital on the whole of not less than
L200,000."[24] It is impossible to discover exactly the rights of the
matter. Certainly Arkwright had been intentionally obscure in his
specifications, as he admitted, and for his defence, namely that it was
to preserve the secret for his countrymen, there was only his word. He
may have hoped to keep the secret for himself; and as to the originality
of both inventions there were grave doubts. But Arkwright has received
little sympathy, because his claims were regarded as grasping in view of
the large fortune which he had already won. He began work with his first
partners at Nottingham (when power was derived from horses) and started
at Cromford in 1771 (where the force of water was used). Soon he was
involved in numerous undertakings, and he remained active till his death
in 1792. He had met throughout with a good deal of opposition, which
possibly to a man of his temperament was stimulating. Even in the matter
of getting protective legislation reframed to give scope to the
application of the water-frame, a powerful section of Lancashire
employers worked against him. This protective legislation must here be
shortly reviewed.

In 1700 an act had been passed (11 & 12 William III. c. 10) prohibiting
the importation of the printed calicoes of India, Persia and China. In
1721 the act 7 George I. c. 7 prohibited the use of any "printed,
painted, stained or dyed calico," excepting only calicoes dyed all blue
and muslins, neckcloths and fustians. This act was modified by the act 9
George II. c. 4 (allowing British calicoes with linen warps). Thus the
matter stood as regards prints when Arkwright had demonstrated that
stout cotton warps could be spun in England, and at the same time the
officers of excise insisted upon exacting a tax of 6d. from the plain
all-cottons instead of the 3d. paid by the cotton-linens, on the ground
that the former were calicoes. Arkwright's plea, however, was admitted,
and by the act 14 George II. c. 72 the still operative part of the act
of 1721 was set aside, and the manufacture, use, and wear of cottons
printed and stained, &c., was permitted subject to the payment of a duty
of 3d